Race & Gender of Judges Make Enormous Differences in Rulings, Studies Find

**Zuberi** · 13th-February-2010

Article here. Excerpt:
'A judge's race or gender makes for a dramatic difference in the outcome of cases they hear—at least for cases in which race and gender allegedly play a role in the conduct of the parties, according to two recent studies.
The results were the focus of a program about “Diversity on the Bench: Is the ‘Wise Latina’ a Myth?,” sponsored by the ABA Judicial Division at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Orlando on Saturday afternoon.
In federal racial harassment cases, one study (PDF) found that plaintiffs lost just 54 percent of the time when the judge handling the case was an African-American. Yet plaintiffs lost 81 percent of the time when the judge was Hispanic, 79 percent when the judge was white, and 67 percent of the time when the judge was Asian American.
...
A second study (PDF), looked at 556 federal appellate cases involving allegations of sexual harassment or sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The finding: plaintiffs were at least twice as likely to win if a female judge was on the appellate panel.
...
The program took its title from a much-debated comment made years ago by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor : “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
The participants never answered the question of whether a Latina judge reaches better conclusions, but at least in some cases, it appears likely that she would reach a different conclusion from a white male jurist hearing the same evidence.'

**Percy** · 14th-February-2010

Excellent find, Zuberi.

These results are very clear - or so it can be thought.

What it needs is a test of significance applied to the raw data.

The problem, you see, is that each case is different and we have no controls for variables. The cases presumably cut across a range of crimes and accusations, different places and different ages, education levels, lawyer competence and a host of other factors.

So we are dealing with idiographic rather than nomothetic raw data. The data therefore need careful handling. A simple Product Moment test would not do and the number of different racial attributes of just the judges rules out a chi square. It would need to be an Anova of some sophistication. But to have any significant difference show up a statistical test is essential.

But.... it is an eye opening start.

**PokemonMasterTrainer** · 14th-February-2010

A second study (PDF), looked at 556 federal appellate cases involving allegations of sexual harassment or sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The finding: plaintiffs were at least twice as likely to win if a female judge was on the appellate panel.

That's a bit of a no brainer!

**Zuberi** · 14th-February-2010

Quote from percy

excellent find, zuberi.

These results are very clear - or so it can be thought.

What it needs is a test of significance applied to the raw data.

The problem, you see, is that each case is different and we have no controls for variables. The cases presumably cut across a range of crimes and accusations, different places and different ages, education levels, lawyer competence and a host of other factors.

So we are dealing with idiographic rather than nomothetic raw data. The data therefore need careful handling. A simple product moment test would not do and the number of different racial attributes of just the judges rules out a chi square. It would need to be an anova of some sophistication. But to have any significant difference show up a statistical test is essential.

But.... It is an eye opening start.

thanks!